Highmark

WaPo......the ultimate peddler of propaganda.

Agree not common what so ever they are calling it a wastegate to control intake pressure on a supercharged engine. Doing it in reverse but could be done. https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/sucp-1211-supercharger-wastegate/ "With the wastegate, we can spin the blower faster to produce greater boost, and bleed off the extra pressure that's not necessary," says Borschke. "This allows the boost to come on much sooner, gaining midrange power--especially torque--that you can really feel on the street. But more importantly, it helps maintain the right boost for to prevent detonation in a stock engine.

I'm not wrong. You use to be quite conservative until the left brainwashed you.

Again I think we are all splitting hairs. What its doing vs what's it called in Airplanes or other vehicles. I know I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

You can't run a Vortex style supercharger thru a wastegate to control manifold pressure?

Well if I'm using a Turbo to charge the air then my definition is its being turbocharged. I don't care if the definitions overlap one another.

Like you're not. The definition of brainwashed indicates a change of position, thought process or feelings on things. You more than anyone one here fit that description.

You are "charging" the air at 10K feet to get it back to sea level pressure are you not?

So if a supercharger doesn't raise manifold pressure above sea level atmospheric pressure then its super normalizing not supercharging? Again I get what you are saying and people are splitting hairs here.

I feel like Neal and the lug flick discussion.

Wiki but still defines it correctly. Techically every foot of elevation changes atmospheric pressure very small amount. In a naturally aspirated engine, air for combustion (Diesel cycle in a diesel engine or specific types of Otto cycle in petrol engines, namely petrol direct injection) or an air/fuel mixture (traditional Otto cycle petrol engines), is drawn into the engine's cylinders by atmospheric pressure acting against a partial vacuum that occurs as the piston travels downwards toward bottom dead centre during the intake stroke. Owing to innate restriction in the engine's inlet tract, which includes the intake manifold, a small pressure drop occurs as air is drawn in, resulting in a volumetric efficiency of less than 100 percent—and a less than complete air charge in the cylinder. The density of the air charge, and therefore the engine's maximum theoretical power output, in addition to being influenced by induction system restriction, is also affected by engine speed and atmospheric pressure, the latter of which decreases as the operating altitude increases. This is in contrast to a forced-induction engine, in which a mechanically driven supercharger or an exhaust-driven turbocharger is employed to facilitate increasing the mass of intake air beyond what could be produced by atmospheric pressure alone.

Can you give me an example of that? My example at some point changes manifold pressure with the use of exhaust gases driving a turbo impeller. The pure definition of turbocharging. Ben I get what you are saying but your hatred of how Skidoo was doing the first turbo mountain sled does not change what it was doing. Increasing manifold pressure by the use of exhaust gases driving a turbo. The level of pressurization need not matter as long as it be greater than what would naturally be available. Go ahead and sue BRP for faulty advertising and see if you win.

What normalizes it?

If a vehicle has a turbo and utilizes it to increase manifold pressure at any given time during operation then its turbocharged.

Still called turbocharging. Altitude turbocharging, which is sometimes called 'normalizing', keeps your engine running like it's at sea level for as long as possible. It depends on the engine, but most altitude turbochargers keep your manifold pressure between 29-30 inches of mercury (sea level pressure) as you climb in altitude. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aircraft-systems/how-an-aircraft-turbocharger-system-works-on-aircraft-high-alt/#:~:text=Altitude turbocharging%2C which is sometimes,as you climb in altitude.

Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt later told CNN that Trump was “clearly talking about cutting waste, not entitlements.”

I'll give Hur credit for one thing.....he knows the investigation and the report. Remember Mueller's testimony? Sounded like an absolute buffoon.

Old but valid today. More proof of the two tiered justice system. https://theintercept.com/2015/03/03/petraeus-plea-deal-reveals-two-tier-justice-system-leaks/ David Petraeus, the former Army general and CIA director, admitted today that he gave highly-classified journals to his onetime lover and that he lied to the FBI about it. But he only has to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor that will not involve a jail sentence thanks to a deal with federal prosecutors. The deal is yet another example of a senior official treated leniently for the sorts of violations that lower-level officials are punished severely for. According to the plea deal, Petraeus, while leading American forces in Afghanistan, maintained eight notebooks that he filled with highly-sensitive information about the identities of covert officers, military strategy, intelligence capabilities and his discussions with senior government officials, including President Obama. Rather than handing over these “Black Books,” as the plea agreement calls them, to the Department of Defense when he retired from the military in 2011 to head the CIA, Petraeus retained them at his home and lent them, for several days, to Paula Broadwell, his authorized biographer and girlfriend. In October 2012, FBI agents interviewed Petraeus as part of an investigation into his affair with Broadwell — Petraeus would resign from the CIA the next month — and Petraeus told them he had not shared classified material with Broadwell. The plea deal notes that “these statements were false” and that Petraeus “then and there knew that he previously shared the Black Books with his biographer.” Lying to FBI agents is a federal crime for which people have received sentences of months or more than a year in jail. Under his deal with prosecutors, Petraeus pleaded guilty to just one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified information, a misdemeanor that can be punishable by a year in jail, though the deal calls only for probation and a $40,000 fine. As The New York Times noted today, the deal “allows Mr. Petraeus to focus on his lucrative post-government career as a partner in a private equity firm and a worldwide speaker on national security issues.” The deal has another effect: it all but confirms a two-tier justice system in which senior officials are slapped on the wrist for serious violations while lesser officials are harshly prosecuted for relatively minor infractions. For instance, last year, after a five-year standoff with federal prosecutors, Stephen Kim, a former State Department official, pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act when he discussed a classified report about North Korea with Fox News reporter James Rosen in 2009. Kim did not hand over a copy of the report — he just discussed it, and nothing else — and the report was subsequently described in court documents as a “nothing burger” in terms of its sensitivity. Kim is currently in prison on a 13-month sentence. “The issue is not whether General Petraeus was dealt with too leniently, because the pleadings indicate good reason for that result,” said Abbe Lowell, who is Kim’s lawyer. “The issue is whether others are dealt with far too severely for conduct that is no different. This underscores the random, disparate and often unfair application of the national security laws where higher-ups are treated better than lower-downs.” In 2013, former CIA agent John Kiriakou pleaded guilty to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by disclosing the name of a covert CIA officer to a freelance reporter; he was sentenced to 30 months in jail. Kiriakou’s felony conviction and considerable jail sentence — for leaking one name that was not published — stands in contrast to Petraeus pleading guilty to a misdemeanor without jail time for leaking multiple names as well as a range of other highly-sensitive information. Kiriakou, released from prison earlier this year, told The Intercept in an emailed statement, “I don’t think General Petraeus should have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act, just as I don’t think I should have been prosecuted under the Espionage Act. Yet only one of us was. Both Petraeus and I disclosed undercover identities (or confirmed one, in my case) that were never published. I spent two years in prison; he gets two years probation.” The prosecution of Kiriakou, Kim and other leakers and whistleblowers has been particularly intense under the Obama Administration, which has filed more than twice as many leak cases under the Espionage Act as all previous administrations combined. In 2013, Army Private Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act by leaking thousands of documents to Wikileaks, and she was sentenced to 35 years in prison. Manning received a harsh sentence even though then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in 2010 that the leaks had only “modest” consequences. “I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought,” Gates said. “Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.” Senior officials tend to get far kinder treatment. As The Times noted today, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was “admonished but not charged” for keeping classified information at his house; John Deutch, the former CIA director, resigned and lost his security clearance but was not charged for storing classified documents on a home computer; and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor after he surreptitiously removed classified documents from the National Archives.

Democraps are worried if Trump is elected we will stop giving money to Ukraine.

He had them in like 6-8 different locations and lied about whether they could be locked up.

Not enough evidence to beat reasonable doubt yet he had recordings of Biden willfully disclosing classified information.

I support and defend where I think its justified.....I don't when its not. With all Trumps faults he is a far better choice for the country moving forward. Vote policy not person.

That makes zero sense in this instance. Miss your meds this morning?